Voter issues? Nah, they dont exist do they......

[turtlespeed 212]

richravizza

Here in CA. I just enrolled in Covered Ca.Health Insurance.
I entered all our SS#s, STATE and Fed. tax forms,and My FEDERAL TAX ID# being self employed.

My Verification Was Denied as a Ca. Resident. what? yep..
DENIED after 20+ years being a Resident,Filing and Paying my State taxes and Never having changed my Address.

SO what is Proof of Calf. Residence?

A F*cken WATER BILL.

On the same, PROOF of Residence Form was TWO BOXES I could check.

One For financial assistance,

One For Voter Registration.

NOPE,
No Voter Fraud Here. I'ts Legal LOL

I believe it.

But look at it this way -

An average of 35K per state . . . 1,750,000

I would say that is very significant.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kelpdiver 2]

davjohns

1. NC having 35,000 potential fraudulent votes could suggest as many as 1.75M nationally if we presume all fraudulent votes were captured and multiply that number by 50 states. There are much better ways of getting to an estimate, but this is something anyone here should be able to come up with in moments.

2. I'm not sure who is recommending a voter ID system, purging legal voters from the ranks, etc.

3. Comparing asking for ID to complete elimination of a constitutionally protected right is next door to trolling...if not there already.

1- Why on earth would you take a number, not grounded in any form of reality, from one state, and merely multiple it by 50? Aside from presuming NC is perfectly representative of the entire 50 states, it's pretty easy math to divide that state's population into the national figure and see that it represents 1/32 of the country, not 1/50. So this sound byte statistic is already lying by 36%.

2- There's really no ambiguity on the subject - the GOP has been pushing for ID laws, for aggressive voter roll purges. Anything to make it harder. Party insiders have admitted exactly this.

3- the net effects have been made clear, just in the number of falsely purged voters. And that's why arguments about whether or not it should stop people from voting don't matter - the fact is it does stop them. And since the entire argument for these laws has been about the costs of the "single illegal vote" tainting the elections, you can't dismiss it away.

[rushmc 18]

kelpdiver

***
1. NC having 35,000 potential fraudulent votes could suggest as many as 1.75M nationally if we presume all fraudulent votes were captured and multiply that number by 50 states. There are much better ways of getting to an estimate, but this is something anyone here should be able to come up with in moments.

2. I'm not sure who is recommending a voter ID system, purging legal voters from the ranks, etc.

3. Comparing asking for ID to complete elimination of a constitutionally protected right is next door to trolling...if not there already.

1- Why on earth would you take a number, not grounded in any form of reality, from one state, and merely multiple it by 50? Aside from presuming NC is perfectly representative of the entire 50 states, it's pretty easy math to divide that state's population into the national figure and see that it represents 1/32 of the country, not 1/50. So this sound byte statistic is already lying by 36%.

2- There's really no ambiguity on the subject - the GOP has been pushing for ID laws, for aggressive voter roll purges. Anything to make it harder. Party insiders have admitted exactly this.

3- the net effects have been made clear, just in the number of falsely purged voters. And that's why arguments about whether or not it should stop people from voting don't matter - the fact is it does stop them. And since the entire argument for these laws has been about the costs of the "single illegal vote" tainting the elections, you can't dismiss it away.

Proof of citizenship to register and and picture ID to vote is all I am asking for
And many states are doing this now with few if any issues
AND
it has been upheld by the SC

All good things

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[davjohns 1]

kelpdiver

***
1. NC having 35,000 potential fraudulent votes could suggest as many as 1.75M nationally if we presume all fraudulent votes were captured and multiply that number by 50 states. There are much better ways of getting to an estimate, but this is something anyone here should be able to come up with in moments.

2. I'm not sure who is recommending a voter ID system, purging legal voters from the ranks, etc.

3. Comparing asking for ID to complete elimination of a constitutionally protected right is next door to trolling...if not there already.

1- Why on earth would you take a number, not grounded in any form of reality, from one state, and merely multiple it by 50? Aside from presuming NC is perfectly representative of the entire 50 states, it's pretty easy math to divide that state's population into the national figure and see that it represents 1/32 of the country, not 1/50. So this sound byte statistic is already lying by 36%.

2- There's really no ambiguity on the subject - the GOP has been pushing for ID laws, for aggressive voter roll purges. Anything to make it harder. Party insiders have admitted exactly this.

3- the net effects have been made clear, just in the number of falsely purged voters. And that's why arguments about whether or not it should stop people from voting don't matter - the fact is it does stop them. And since the entire argument for these laws has been about the costs of the "single illegal vote" tainting the elections, you can't dismiss it away.

1. Sorry. I thought I explained that. It was for simplicity. I'm pretty sure I even stated there were better ways of getting at a more accurate number.

2. The post I responded to suggested someone wanted to spend millions on a voter ID system, not just laws requiring ID presentation to safeguard legal voters. It also specified that someone was advocating purging legal voters from the system. I asked who was advocating such atrocities. Every database requires purging. Whether that purge is 'aggressive' or not is just an opinion. Moreover, some databases might need an aggressive purge if they've been neglected long enough. But legal voters should never be purged. I don't think anyone is really advocating that.

3. It cuts both ways. One fraudulent vote stands to invalidate my vote. The system should be ssafeguarded. Asking someone to show an ID to ensure they are who they say they are seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Amazon 7]

AND putting election officials in jail for suppressing votes in districts that are inconveniently ethnic or old or young by too few machines or broken machines because there is a conscious effort to win by deceptive and illegal means or not enough poll workers because they have all the machines in districts that favor their party.
Sorry but denying Americans the right to vote for any partisan reasons or fraud should bring long prison sentences for un-American activity.
Make it a paid holiday as many countries do. It is reason to celebrate to participate in what so many of us fought so hard for.

Make all forms of STATE REQUIRED ID..... just because it is required by so many laws seeking to suppress the groups that conservatives find so troubling to them and their message that can't get the vote.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

davjohns

******
1. NC having 35,000 potential fraudulent votes could suggest as many as 1.75M nationally if we presume all fraudulent votes were captured and multiply that number by 50 states. There are much better ways of getting to an estimate, but this is something anyone here should be able to come up with in moments.

2. I'm not sure who is recommending a voter ID system, purging legal voters from the ranks, etc.

3. Comparing asking for ID to complete elimination of a constitutionally protected right is next door to trolling...if not there already.

1- Why on earth would you take a number, not grounded in any form of reality, from one state, and merely multiple it by 50? Aside from presuming NC is perfectly representative of the entire 50 states, it's pretty easy math to divide that state's population into the national figure and see that it represents 1/32 of the country, not 1/50. So this sound byte statistic is already lying by 36%.

2- There's really no ambiguity on the subject - the GOP has been pushing for ID laws, for aggressive voter roll purges. Anything to make it harder. Party insiders have admitted exactly this.

3- the net effects have been made clear, just in the number of falsely purged voters. And that's why arguments about whether or not it should stop people from voting don't matter - the fact is it does stop them. And since the entire argument for these laws has been about the costs of the "single illegal vote" tainting the elections, you can't dismiss it away.

1. Sorry. I thought I explained that. It was for simplicity. I'm pretty sure I even stated there were better ways of getting at a more accurate number.

2. The post I responded to suggested someone wanted to spend millions on a voter ID system, not just laws requiring ID presentation to safeguard legal voters. It also specified that someone was advocating purging legal voters from the system. I asked who was advocating such atrocities. Every database requires purging. Whether that purge is 'aggressive' or not is just an opinion. Moreover, some databases might need an aggressive purge if they've been neglected long enough. But legal voters should never be purged. I don't think anyone is really advocating that.

3. It cuts both ways. One fraudulent vote stands to invalidate my vote. The system should be ssafeguarded. Asking someone to show an ID to ensure they are who they say they are seems perfectly reasonable to me.

So implementing a system to address voter fraud in 0.2% of voters so they can vote in a system with a 1% margin of error makes sense?

Now, those numbers are made up. However, there is no clear evidence that voter fraud is an issue in even more than 0.1% of votes cast.

There is certainly evdidence that the margin of error in the voting system is larger than 0.1%.

Since the stated reason doesn't make sense AND it is driven by only one political party, it makes me think there might be an alterior motive.

[davjohns 1]

I have no idea what the numbers are. Nobody does. If we knew exactly how many fraudulent votes were being cast, we would be pursuing those people participating. I'll agree it is not huge. That's why I don't want anything more than for people to show the same ID they are required to present for purchasing a firearm. I'm not asking that they fill out the two page form, sign an affidavit, or go through a background check. Just make sure I am who I say I am before you line through my name indicating I voted.

As to a political party...I have none. I think anyone who cares about the sanctity of the vote would be interested in people simply identifying themselves. I think because one party took it up as a battle cry, the other party feels compelled to take the opposite position. I would be amazed if ALL voter fraud fell in one end of the political / socio-economic spectrum.It ends up with both parties having talking points that seem haphazard to me.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

Amazon, I'm sorry. I can't quite make out all of your intent. But I agree that suppressing anyone's vote for political reasons is completely repugnant to democratic ideals.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rhaig 0]

Amazon

Sorry but denying Americans the right to vote for any partisan reasons or fraud should bring long prison sentences for un-American activity.

partisan reasons should bring prison time. Yes. I'm not sure what you mean by fraud in that sentence. are you referring to denying someone a vote because of suspected voter fraud?

Quote

Make it a paid holiday as many countries do. It is reason to celebrate to participate in what so many of us fought so hard for.

Making voting day a national holiday isn't objectionable to me. It would let it fall under state laws for holiday pay.

Quote

Make all forms of STATE REQUIRED ID..... just because it is required by so many laws seeking to suppress the groups that conservatives find so troubling to them and their message that can't get the vote.

Did you have your coffee yet? Not sure what you're saying here. Make all forms of state issued ID valid for voter identification? Works for me.

I think any voter-ID law should include provisions for a free state-issued ID card for those who can show inability to pay, as well as provisions for a way to get the non-mobile population an ID as well (perhaps a mobile ID unit that would travel around the state).

--
Rob

[billvon 2,400]

>My Verification Was Denied as a Ca. Resident. what? yep..
>DENIED after 20+ years being a Resident,Filing and Paying my State taxes and
>Never having changed my Address.

There's only one solution - make it even harder for you to prove you are a resident.

[Amazon 7]

rhaig

***
Sorry but denying Americans the right to vote for any partisan reasons or fraud should bring long prison sentences for un-American activity.

partisan reasons should bring prison time. Yes. I'm not sure what you mean by fraud in that sentence. are you referring to denying someone a vote because of suspected voter fraud?

Quote

Make it a paid holiday as many countries do. It is reason to celebrate to participate in what so many of us fought so hard for.

Making voting day a national holiday isn't objectionable to me. It would let it fall under state laws for holiday pay.

Quote

Make all forms of STATE REQUIRED ID..... just because it is required by so many laws seeking to suppress the groups that conservatives find so troubling to them and their message that can't get the vote.

Did you have your coffee yet? Not sure what you're saying here. Make all forms of state issued ID valid for voter identification? Works for me.

I think any voter-ID law should include provisions for a free state-issued ID card for those who can show inability to pay, as well as provisions for a way to get the non-mobile population an ID as well (perhaps a mobile ID unit that would travel around the state).

Think about some of the electronic shenannigans that occured.. stealing votes electronically and fixing elections should be a very long prison term in federal prison.
Purging roles at the last minute based on factors that have been used in say Florida... should bring some quality time with Bubba and Big Bertha.

I like the idea of a mobile ID mobile into areas where the old and the economically disadvantaged can get what is needed to prove who they are.

[billvon 2,400]

1) That wasn't double voting; that's a lie. (Not saying you are lying; the NRO is.)

2) Most voter fraud incidents come from the government "losing" ballots or not counting certain counties etc. You really want to give THEM more power and people less?

[richravizza 25]

billvon

>My Verification Was Denied as a Ca. Resident. what? yep..
>DENIED after 20+ years being a Resident,Filing and Paying my State taxes and
>Never having changed my Address.

There's only one solution - make it even harder for you to prove you are a resedent.

Nope,

The Opposite Point I was trying to convy.
if the state Has my tax Returns,SSI,and State Tax Return how could they DENY my state Residence?

Why Would they want a Ambiguous form of ID?

Seems My Legal status,tax filing,and residence, Has Nothing to do with my Rights to Vote as a LEGAL citizen.

But the payment of a Water bill is Proof... of WHAT?

The Legal right to Vote?

You Can Spin this Any way you want.

We all Know Why. Millions ....of Votes in CA.
Bought and Payed for by,... oops...
I meant "family assistence and Medi-Cal."

[billvon 2,400]

>if the state Has my tax Returns,SSI,and State Tax Return how could they DENY
>my state Residence?

Stated reason? Because you might be someone trying to vote illegally.

Real reason? Because the other party wants to discourage you from voting so their candidate will win.

[kelpdiver 2]

SkyDekker

So implementing a system to address voter fraud in 0.2% of voters so they can vote in a system with a 1% margin of error makes sense?

Now, those numbers are made up. However, there is no clear evidence that voter fraud is an issue in even more than 0.1% of votes cast.

There is certainly evdidence that the margin of error in the voting system is larger than 0.1%.

For mechanical machines, that 1% is pretty fair. Maybe overall you'd call it 0.5%, while noting the wealthy precincts are the ones that get the electronic machines first.

The fraud level may be 0.02%, for all we've seen to date. In any event, your WAGs are kind to the GOP. It's at least an order of magnitude apart. We can count the number of false positives in purges - people who had vaguely similar names to felons (Clarence Thomas instead of Thomas Clarence, or all Clarence [MI] Thomas's, without trying to match the middle name).

Florida insiders confirmed the obvious 2 years ago:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/
As for voter purges:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/one-two-punch-floridas-voter-purge
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0402/Court-rules-Florida-voter-purge-illegal-but-will-it-stop-GOP-voting-tweaks

Despite being stopped at the district and appellate level, the state prepares to do it again.
Trying to purge people right before an election is too aggressive. Do it before the primaries if your intent is truly noble - give those you disenfranchised a change to fix it before the main.

[masterblaster72 0]

kelpdiver

As for voter purges:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/one-two-punch-floridas-voter-purge

I found this revolting:

Quote

Even at the time, there was a degree of shamelessness that even the most rabid GOP partisans found difficult to defend. In the hopes of addressing a problem that didn’t exist, the Republican governor of a key battleground state tried to purge Americans from the voter rolls, leaving affected citizens very little time to respond, and disproportionately targeting voters determined to be likely Democrats – including a 91-year-old World War II vet.

Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up.

[kelpdiver 2]

well, it was only 14 years ago the Gore Campaign tried to target veteran ballots cast in Florida, so I'd be careful going down this road for a cheapie like this.

[davjohns 1]

kelpdiver

***
So implementing a system to address voter fraud in 0.2% of voters so they can vote in a system with a 1% margin of error makes sense?

Now, those numbers are made up. However, there is no clear evidence that voter fraud is an issue in even more than 0.1% of votes cast.

There is certainly evdidence that the margin of error in the voting system is larger than 0.1%.

For mechanical machines, that 1% is pretty fair. Maybe overall you'd call it 0.5%, while noting the wealthy precincts are the ones that get the electronic machines first.

The fraud level may be 0.02%, for all we've seen to date. In any event, your WAGs are kind to the GOP. It's at least an order of magnitude apart. We can count the number of false positives in purges - people who had vaguely similar names to felons (Clarence Thomas instead of Thomas Clarence, or all Clarence [MI] Thomas's, without trying to match the middle name).

Florida insiders confirmed the obvious 2 years ago:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/early-voting-curbs-called-power-play/nTFDy/
As for voter purges:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/one-two-punch-floridas-voter-purge
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0402/Court-rules-Florida-voter-purge-illegal-but-will-it-stop-GOP-voting-tweaks

Despite being stopped at the district and appellate level, the state prepares to do it again.
Trying to purge people right before an election is too aggressive. Do it before the primaries if your intent is truly noble - give those you disenfranchised a change to fix it before the main.

Of course, I would hope you would offer the same analysis of numbers of legal voters who are unable to show a state issued photo ID and are somehow unable to prove who they are to obtain a free one (if they can't afford it). Then, it's a pretty simple analysis, really. Does the requirement to identify yourself make the voting system more secure?

I'm still waiting for someone to suggest I shouldn't have to show ID, fill out a form, sign an affidavit, and go through a background check to exercise an enumerated right. Those are considered 'reasonable' and 'common sense'...until applied to other rights. I'm not asking that they prove they are competent like the requirement to get a driver's license.

I'm asking that a voter present the same photo ID they used to get a job (required for the I-9), or they use to pick up their public assistance check (required according to the US Gov website I checked), or they use when they buy alcohol (duh), or they use to legally drive, or...let's face it...if you aren't doing one of these things, something really weird is going on. An adult who does not have a legal job, is not getting public assistance of any sort, has never had a legal drink, can't drive...??? But they are a registered voter? How did they swing that? How do they survive?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[kelpdiver 2]

davjohns

Of course, I would hope you would offer the same analysis of numbers of legal voters who are unable to show a state issued photo ID and are somehow unable to prove who they are to obtain a free one (if they can't afford it). Then, it's a pretty simple analysis, really. Does the requirement to identify yourself make the voting system more secure?

..

I'm asking that a voter present the same photo ID they used to get a job (required for the I-9), or they use to pick up their public assistance check (required according to the US Gov website I checked), or they use when they buy alcohol (duh), or they use to legally drive, or...let's face it...if you aren't doing one of these things, something really weird is going on. An adult who does not have a legal job, is not getting public assistance of any sort, has never had a legal drink, can't drive...??? But they are a registered voter? How did they swing that? How do they survive?

You're approaching this from a question of "how hard is this burden really, and is it fair to ask each citizen to be responsible for it."

But fair or not, the impact of the burden has been well shown - legal voters being purged from the polls and finding out on election day, and others not showing up at all.

Lower participation rate is the exact intent of those proposing these laws. It's not about making the voting system more secure.

BTW, how many kids buy alcohol with false IDs in this country every year? If the solution is so clearly insecure, how seriously can we take the people proposing it as the answer and as their actual motivation?

[SkyDekker 1,123]

I don't understand this concept that every right is supposed to be "implemented" exactly the same way, with the same restrictions or lack of restrictions.

Plus I have to say I find it odd that everything gets compared to how you can get guns.

[davjohns 1]

I don't see the point of your first comment. Yes, I'm saying, why is this supposed to be so hard? It's not. And of course it is fair to ask each citizen to bear responsibility to go with their exercise of a right.

I don't see how you come to the conclusion that legal voters purged from the rolls is a natural result of asking someone to show their ID. Non-sequitur.

I think I already mentioned, I don't have a party...and I support voter ID. So your third comment is in error. The fact that one party is pushing for it doesn't make it wrong. It just makes the other party take the opposite view for some reason. The fact is, if the GOP is doing it for political reasons, so is the DEM...and they are both wrong for doing so.

The natural conclusion of your final comment is that we should not ask for ID when people buy alcohol. Again...bad logic.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

I'm not saying all rights should be handled exactly the same. I just think all of them should be protected the same.

If someone votes fraudulently and contrary to my vote, I have been deprived of my vote. If one person votes ten times fraudulently, they have stolen ten people's votes. It's pretty easy to stop it. Let's protect the individual right to vote.

On the other hand, a plethora of gun laws are being promoted just to abridge individual rights...not to protect them. I'm pointing out the paradox.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

davjohns

I'm not saying all rights should be handled exactly the same. I just think all of them should be protected the same.

If someone votes fraudulently and contrary to my vote, I have been deprived of my vote. If one person votes ten times fraudulently, they have stolen ten people's votes. It's pretty easy to stop it. Let's protect the individual right to vote.

On the other hand, a plethora of gun laws are being promoted just to abridge individual rights...not to protect them. I'm pointing out the paradox.

And then you even allow illegals the right to free speech. They should show ID before they talk.

It really isn't that easy to stop it. Specially since it hardly ever happens. Plus those who really want to, will simply get fake ID.

(Isn't the argument against gun laws that it turns law abiding citizens into criminals and that it doesn't stop those who want to really do harm anyways?)

[kelpdiver 2]

davjohns

I don't see the point of your first comment. Yes, I'm saying, why is this supposed to be so hard? It's not. And of course it is fair to ask each citizen to bear responsibility to go with their exercise of a right.

The point is, it doesn't matter if it is hard or not. If the result is that fewer people [that have a right to] vote, then you're not improving democracy, you're attacking it. It might be acceptable as an unintended consequence and then take actions to remediate, but we know that this was the intended result all along.

Since we apparently want to bring guns into the conversation - it's no different than "common sense" proposals by gun controllers that make it slightly more expensive, slightly more inconvenient for citizens to buy guns. They will assert "it's not that hard" for the law abiding to deal with because it might have a (miniscule) impact on public safety. But we all know the end result is that fewer people will exercise their 2nd Amendment right. That's the exact reason they promote it, as part of their death by 1000 cuts strategy.




I don't see how you come to the conclusion that legal voters purged from the rolls is a natural result of asking someone to show their ID. Non-sequitur.

I think I already mentioned, I don't have a party...and I support voter ID. So your third comment is in error. The fact that one party is pushing for it doesn't make it wrong. It just makes the other party take the opposite view for some reason. The fact is, if the GOP is doing it for political reasons, so is the DEM...and they are both wrong for doing so.

The natural conclusion of your final comment is that we should not ask for ID when people buy alcohol. Again...bad logic.

[davjohns 1]

I'm unfamiliar with the factual basis for the argument that people will fail to exercise their right to vote if they have to show ID. Has anyone tested this? Has there been a place where people were given the opportunity to get free ID for voting purposes, and those people subsequently failed to vote when they were legally entitled to and wanted to?

We already require ID of gun buyers...and a two page questionnaire...and an affidavit...and a background check...I'm unfamiliar with anyone not practicing their right because of it.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.